Katie M O'Brien1,2, Therese Mooney3, Patricia Fitzpatrick3,4, Linda Sharp5. 1. National Cancer Registry Ireland, Cork, T12 CDF7, Ireland. k.obrien@ncri.ie. 2. Department of Mathematics, Cork Institute of Technology, Cork, T12 P928, Ireland. k.obrien@ncri.ie. 3. National Screening Service, King's Inns House, 200 Parnell Street, Dublin 1, Ireland. 4. School of Public Health, Physiotherapy & Sports Science, University College Dublin, Dublin 4, Ireland. 5. Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined whether demographic and tumour characteristics (including subtype) were different for women with breast cancer diagnosed via mammography screening compared with women with interval breast cancers, lapsed attenders of the screening programme and non-participants of the screening programme. In addition, we explored whether there were survival differences between the groups, taking into account lead time bias. METHODS: We used linked data from National Cancer Registry Ireland and the national breast screening programme BreastCheck. Multinomial logistic regression was used to test the association of covariates with screening status. For survival analysis, we corrected the survival time for screen-detected cases for lead time bias, examined Kaplan-Meier curves and then used Cox regression to investigate differences in survival by screening status. RESULTS: Subtype (HER2 over-expressing, triple negative), stage (III/IV), grade (poor), having co-morbidities, area of deprivation, smoking status and age were associated with having interval cancer or being a non-participant of the screening programme in the multivariable model. After correcting for lead time bias, and adjusting for variables associated with screening status, there was no evidence that risk of breast-cancer death for women with screen-detected cancer was different from women with interval cancer (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.03), non-participants (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.37) and lapsed attenders (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.65-1.45). CONCLUSIONS: Screening status was strongly associated with subtype and this association persisted after adjustment for covariates including tumour stage and grade. After correcting for lead-time bias and adjusting for stage, subtype, grade and socio-demographic variables, no significant survival difference was demonstrated for women with screen-detected cancer in the 5-year period post-diagnosis. Since we are adjusting for stage, subtype and other variables, the lack of difference between these groups would be expected but has not been demonstrated in studies which do not correct for lead time bias.
PURPOSE: We examined whether demographic and tumour characteristics (including subtype) were different for women with breast cancer diagnosed via mammography screening compared with women with interval breast cancers, lapsed attenders of the screening programme and non-participants of the screening programme. In addition, we explored whether there were survival differences between the groups, taking into account lead time bias. METHODS: We used linked data from National Cancer Registry Ireland and the national breast screening programme BreastCheck. Multinomial logistic regression was used to test the association of covariates with screening status. For survival analysis, we corrected the survival time for screen-detected cases for lead time bias, examined Kaplan-Meier curves and then used Cox regression to investigate differences in survival by screening status. RESULTS: Subtype (HER2 over-expressing, triple negative), stage (III/IV), grade (poor), having co-morbidities, area of deprivation, smoking status and age were associated with having interval cancer or being a non-participant of the screening programme in the multivariable model. After correcting for lead time bias, and adjusting for variables associated with screening status, there was no evidence that risk of breast-cancer death for women with screen-detected cancer was different from women with interval cancer (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.03), non-participants (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.37) and lapsed attenders (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.65-1.45). CONCLUSIONS: Screening status was strongly associated with subtype and this association persisted after adjustment for covariates including tumour stage and grade. After correcting for lead-time bias and adjusting for stage, subtype, grade and socio-demographic variables, no significant survival difference was demonstrated for women with screen-detected cancer in the 5-year period post-diagnosis. Since we are adjusting for stage, subtype and other variables, the lack of difference between these groups would be expected but has not been demonstrated in studies which do not correct for lead time bias.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Non-proportional hazards; Screening; Subtypes; Survival
Authors: Yalei Chen; Laura Susick; Melissa Davis; Jessica Bensenhaver; S David Nathanson; Jessica Burns; Lisa A Newman Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Genevieve A Fasano; Solange Bayard; Yalei Chen; Leticia Varella; Tessa Cigler; Jessica Bensenhaver; Rache Simmons; Alexander Swistel; Jennifer Marti; Anne Moore; Eleni Andreopoulou; John Ng; Andrew Brandmaier; Silvia Formenti; Haythem Ali; Melissa Davis; Lisa Newman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Johanna Alanko; Minna Tanner; Ritva Vanninen; Anssi Auvinen; Jorma Isola Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Marta Hernández-García; Ana Molina-Barceló; Mercedes Vanaclocha-Espi; Óscar Zurriaga; Beatriz Pérez-Gómez; Nuria Aragonés; Pilar Amiano; Jone M Altzibar; Gemma Castaño-Vinyals; María Sala; María Ederra; Vicente Martín; Inés Gómez-Acebo; Carmen Vidal; Adonina Tardón; Rafael Marcos-Gragera; Marina Pollán; Manolis Kogevinas; Dolores Salas Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-11-24 Impact factor: 2.506